Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Clone Tool in Capture One

PaulWolf
I am in the process of trying to move away from Photoshop given their new subscription model. I find Capture One might fit the bill as a replacement but I can't find an equivalent to Photoshop's Clone tool. And I'm not talking about simply cloning dust spots. For example, if I need to use a clone of a particular part of a brick wall to copy over another part of the wall to get rid of a distracting element, I can't figure out how to do that in Capture One. In other words, not everything one needs to clone is round. Is there a way to do such a thing using Capture One?
0

Comments

12 comments

Date Votes
  • NNN634863802867218057
    There is no such thing and I don't know if it is going to be possible one day because C1 keeps the original file as-is.
    0
  • SFA
    Paul,

    I think what you seek is very much a Graphics Manipulation feature (so Photo Shop and similar products) rather than a RAW photo file converter feature Iwhich is the direction from which C1 approaches things although these days many similar products try to provide some sort of functionality in that middle ground.

    I also huase a program that is very similar to C1 but offers some more flexibility for cloning without moving into PS Layers territory. So more is possibly, maybe, but I suspect would still not entirely meet your needs.

    There are other products besides PS of course, Indeed there are some PS plugins that can run stand alone these days and may offer you a way forward.

    I tend to think of any serious cloning beyond spots and dust as being end of PP graphics manipulation which can probably be done quite successfully at the jpeg (or other output file) level without introducing the complexity of creating the edit early and then having to carry it all the way through the rest of the processing during RAW conversion.

    Still, there is no harm is asking the question.

    HTH.


    Grant Perkins
    0
  • PaulWolf
    Grant,
    Thanks for the reply. I do like the converter in C1, no doubt about it. I will keep looking for other tools to completely replace Photoshop. I see your point about further editing in JPEG or other output file; however, editing like that in a lossy format file such as JPEG doesn't seem to be the way to go. Still, with the possible (probable??) loss of Photoshop, I will have to completely rethink my workflow. So, again, thank you for the input. The search continues.

    Paul
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="PaulWolf" wrote:
    Grant,
    Thanks for the reply. I do like the converter in C1, no doubt about it. I will keep looking for other tools to completely replace Photoshop. I see your point about further editing in JPEG or other output file; however, editing like that in a lossy format file such as JPEG doesn't seem to be the way to go. Still, with the possible (probable??) loss of Photoshop, I will have to completely rethink my workflow. So, again, thank you for the input. The search continues.

    Paul



    I agree Paul, although maybe the concern about lossy only matters it dealing with Fine Art at large print sizes?

    My heart says we should look for quality all the way. (Whether or not we achieve it to our satisfaction.)

    My head says that, mostly, people don't really care too much.

    My financial manager says I have no idea where the cash generation benefits really come from.


    Grant
    0
  • mikekatz
    [quote="NNN634863802867218057" wrote:
    There is no such thing and I don't know if it is going to be possible one day because C1 keeps the original file as-is.


    Lightroom also does not affect the original file, and it has a clone option. LR5 improves this substantially.

    I don't see the problem, really. The sidecar file stores the shape and position of the area to be cloned, and the position of the area you are cloning from. The original image is untouched.
    0
  • SFA
    Mike,

    It may indeed be that simple in many cases but I suspect there are other case where it is not so simple. The code would have to be designed to produce the absolutely best output from some potentially complex multiple levels of adjustment for the replacement layer and then blend it. (Or blend it and then adjust it?)

    Jpeg compression can hide a lot of challenges. I'm not sure that a top quality output could achieve the same wthout a lot of work. Going to a lot of effort and then blending to hide the challenges may be a step too far to justify. Easier to go to the graphics processor route. Does not have to be PS.

    There comes a time when re-inventing a wheel may not be the best use of resources - but that consideration is for others to think about.

    Grant
    0
  • mikekatz
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Mike,

    It may indeed be that simple in many cases but I suspect there are other case where it is not so simple. The code would have to be designed to produce the absolutely best output from some potentially complex multiple levels of adjustment for the replacement layer and then blend it. (Or blend it and then adjust it?)

    Jpeg compression can hide a lot of challenges. I'm not sure that a top quality output could achieve the same wthout a lot of work. Going to a lot of effort and then blending to hide the challenges may be a step too far to justify. Easier to go to the graphics processor route. Does not have to be PS.

    There comes a time when re-inventing a wheel may not be the best use of resources - but that consideration is for others to think about.

    Grant


    Hi Grant

    I don't entirely agree with what you say. In many cases a simple cloning is quite sufficient. Obviously there are some images that require complex manipulation, but a simple cloning tool at the RAW stage can often remove the need to go into Photoshop. There are many Lightroom users (I'm one of them) who hardly have to venture into PS these days, and that's one of the factors you'll see mentioned in the many discussions on Adobe's CC announcement.

    I'm in the same boat as the OP on this topic, and I would seriously consider moving lock, stock, and barrel into C1 if I had a few additional tools such as a clone option. Lightroom WILL move onto a perpetual license basis, it's just a matter of time. If there was ever an opportunity for Phase One to justify putting additional resources into C1, it's now.
    0
  • SFA
    Hi Mike,

    I think we agree on "in many cases" but the expectation might be that whatever is offered works flawlessy in all cases.

    One thing that occurs to me is that on might clone from a section of an image that requires some lens adjustment into a section of an image that does not - or requires a different from of adjustment. For the very best results let us assume.

    How do you code for that in a way that everyone will be happy with?

    Now you might correctly suggest that I am being too pedantic in my likely approach to the design of the solution. You could be right. But if so I might suggest that the absolute level of detail is not really that important. In which case perform the manipulation after PP on the (jpg?) out put file.

    99.99% of people will notice any difference.

    Actually multiply that by 1000 and and I would guess the number is not too inaccurate.

    I'm hoping you tell me I am wrong (and provide something that looks like proof).
    😉


    Grant
    0
  • mikekatz
    Hi Grant

    If there was flawless solution to this type of problem, bit editors such as Photoshop would not exist any more 😄 .

    The fact is that for some images, and for some manipulations, there will always be a need for a bit editor. However, I'm personally extremely happy to only require limited trips into PS.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Mike141" wrote:
    Hi Grant

    If there was flawless solution to this type of problem, bit editors such as Photoshop would not exist any more 😄 .




    True enough - at least in the photo creation world.

    I have another application, similar to C1 in its conception, that does allow more cloning but not in the same way that a bit editor provides. Yes it can be done .... but ... it is still limited if serious cloning is required. I'm not totally convinced that a halfway solution is an advantage. It may be best to make use of a dedicated tool and by using that tool on a more regular basis become more adept and accomplished with it. I suspect that might be the more productive path to take though I wish I was wrong.

    I probably do much less cloning than I should so my opinion is readily questionable.


    Grant
    0
  • Steve Tompsett
    if LR5 can do it...I dont see why CP1 cant..looking at a recent webinar it seems CP1 is after the disgruntled market that the Adobe CC decision created ...so going toe to toe with tools that LR5 has seems to make sense
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Tommo1965" wrote:
    if LR5 can do it...I dont see why CP1 cant..looking at a recent webinar it seems CP1 is after the disgruntled market that the Adobe CC decision created ...so going toe to toe with tools that LR5 has seems to make sense



    Based on my experiences as a user and tester of software not in anyway related to photo editing (but of course moving with technology and upgrading database potential, etc.) and input from the development team(s) things may not be that simple in all cases. Indeed they may not be simple at all.

    Whether things could have been done differently to make them simpler is a different discussion but quite a few things that might seem to be simple journeys from A to C via B turn out to be more of a Magical Mystery Tour. Or so it seems.

    Lets hope that progress with Local Adjustments turns out to be one of the easier routes.


    Grant Perkins
    0

Post is closed for comments.